Main Menu

What have the Gerbils been up to?

I haven’t been over to Birther Report™ for quite a while and I thought I’d better check what the gerbils have been up to. A couple of things are going on.

Mike Volin says that the “Article II Truth Ad Campaign” is collecting money to launch “Internet ads” beginning the last week in January. The ads will “focus solely on the Article II ‘Natural Born Citizen’ requirement and the 2016 ineligible candidates including Barack Obama a.k.a. Barry Soetoro.” There’s PayPal link.

Volin’s Blog Talk Radio show last night featured Charles Kerchner and Mario Apuzzo hosted by Gary Wilmott. The link to the show is here.

While I was poking around at Gary Wilmott’s Give Us Liberty 1776 blog, I saw a curious article: “Nope. Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor.” It links to a fairly stupid article that says in essence that Obama lied when claimed to have taught Constitutional law because he was a not a professor, and therefore he didn’t teach. If one defines “professor” as “the highest rank in a college or university” then President Obama was not one, and never claimed to be one. His position at the University of Chicago Law School was “senior lecturer” and lecturers teach too. Heck, I taught calculus at a university and I was just a graduate teaching assistant. Duh.

Like this blog, the gerbils have many articles related to Ted Cruz. I sometimes get a kick out the ads I see on certain web sites. Here’s one from Birther Report™:

image

45 Responses to What have the Gerbils been up to?

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

    I use Birther Report™ with the trademark symbol, but it is not a registered trademark (which would warrant the ® mark). I don’t do it of respect, but rather to hint that they’re being pretentious. My Gerbil Report™ site also uses the trademark symbol.

  2. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2016 at 4:53 pm #

    I predict the birthers will finally be successful and will get Obama out of office by 1 year from today.

  3. avatar
    CRJ January 21, 2016 at 5:21 pm #

    Glad you wrote this Post, I had almost forgotten that Obama acknowledged the 2nd Amendment “written on the paper”.. that there piece of paper. Was he referring to the toilet paper ..maybe the paper towells.. No wait., the paper bag?

    [Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this — (applause) — I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.]

    Have you ever seen or heard such formal disrespect for our U.S. Constitution in the advent of an Executive memorandum? I don’t think 6th graders could do worse.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=XRZGe9gpdz8

    I’ve taught Constitutional Law myself and argued three cases in the U.S. Supreme Court about the same way, here’s an online Class to watch:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL42539C3948B285D1&params=OAFIAVg8&v=k96nD0S4H1M&mode=NORMAL

    Here’s some things [ infringing] the 2nd Amendment can get you Obama didn’t mention in reference to “that paper”s significance, if you are in favor of gun control. This simply bears witness also of the importance of [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to U.S. Citizen Parents.

    The Soviet Union
    Established gun control in 1929.

    From 1929 to 1953,
    20 million political dissidents,
    unable to defend themselves,
    were rounded up and exterminated..

    Turkey
    Established gun control in 1911.

    From 1915 to 1917,
    1.5 million Armenians,
    unable to defend themselves,
    were rounded up and exterminated..

    Germany
    Established gun control in 1938.

    From 1939 to 1945,
    13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals,
    mentally ill people and other
    “mongrelized peoples,”
    unable to defend themselves,
    were rounded up and exterminated..

    China
    Established gun control in 1935.

    From 1948 to 1952,
    20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
    were rounded up and exterminated..

    Guatemala
    Established gun control in 1964.

    From 1964 to 1981,
    100,000 Mayan Indians,
    unable to defend themselves,
    were rounded up and exterminated..

    Uganda
    Established gun control in 1970.

    From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated..

    Cambodia
    Established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 one million “educated people,”
    unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated..

    In very recent history!
    TOTAL VICTIMS
    56 MILLION!

  4. avatar
    bob January 21, 2016 at 5:33 pm #

    CRJ:
    Have you ever seen or heard such formal disrespect for our U.S. Constitution in the advent of an Executive memorandum?

    What a drama queen: reasonable (and minor) restrictions is not being disrespectful of the U.S. Constitution.

    I’ve taught Constitutional Law myself

    Talking to oneself is not “teaching.”

    argued three cases in the U.S. Supreme Court

    Filing papers is not arguing, especially when they were summarily rejected.

    Judy’s delusional ego is again on display.

  5. avatar
    CRJ January 21, 2016 at 5:35 pm #

    Scientist: I predict the birthers will finally be successful and will get Obama out of office by 1 year from today.

    Victory😂😂😂

    But wait..
    Did you happen to notice in the last debate H.Clinton wrapping herself in Obama? When she quit her SOS Job and has worked to put distance between him, does that make sense?

    Now, all of a sudden she’s wrapped up in him cozy as a [Private Server] is wrapped up in [emails] outed by the Baker Valleri Jarrett in the first place?

    Hummm.. Could it be? WOW! Did you see that 50 caliber rifle Obama let go of in Fast&Furious to cause mayhem on Americans so the Press would have a Field Day resulting in Americans wanting the 2nd Amendment tied to a Post?

    I hope we are not over estimating the 365 days or.. Underestimating what can happen in a year.

  6. avatar
    CRJ January 21, 2016 at 5:41 pm #

    bob: Filing papers is not arguing, especially when they were summarily rejected.

    I was just hacking on ya Bob. I had a bet ..you’d respond, I won! 😂😂😂 Thanks!

    Really though I did argue they should not be summarily rejected. Argued my a*s off in the U.S. SUPREME COURT.

    That’s Big!!!

  7. avatar
    bob January 21, 2016 at 5:51 pm #

    CRJ: Argued my a*s off in the U.S. SUPREME COURT.

    Many people file papers in court; losing is not a noteworthy “achievement”.

    That’s Big!!!

    Judy’s second biggest action in his life is being repeatedly rejected by the courts.

    The first, of course, was when he terrorized thousands.

  8. avatar
    Andy January 21, 2016 at 7:43 pm #

    CRJ:

    You can’t argue a case in a court that doesn’t accept the case…just sayin’.

  9. avatar
    Rickey January 21, 2016 at 10:37 pm #

    Here is what the Tenth Circuit wrote in denying Judy’s appeal:

    First, addressing whether he adequately stated a claim for relief, Judy cites no basis in law for his claim that he is entitled to damages under § 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act. Even taking all his allegations as true and construing them in the light most favorable to his case, we see nothing even suggesting that he would ever be entitled to any sort of relief for President Obama’s (and the other Defendants’) supposed wrongdoing. Judy cannot point to a single case that construes any of these statutes in a way supporting his claims for relief. Next, because we see no scenario where he would be entitled to relief under § 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act, we also agree with the district court that his complaint was frivolous.

    In effect the Tenth Circuit was telling Judy, “If you want your lawsuit to proceed, you have to convince the Supreme Court that you are entitled to relief under § 1983.”

    So Judy files a 34-page cert petition, and nowhere in that petition does he argue why he is entitled to relief under § 1983.

  10. avatar
    CRJ January 21, 2016 at 10:38 pm #

    Andy: You can’t argue a case in a court that doesn’t accept the case…just sayin’.

    Yes, you can actually by asking for Review and submitting argument for it that is then decided. That’s what made the IFP review of the Motion Denial so corrupt.

    I’m reading “IFP Reconsideration Review Judy v. Obama 14-9396” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/269622543
    They saw the evidence and refused to see it. That is what constitutes Bad Behavior.

    This is really serious
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-9396.htm

  11. avatar
    CRJ January 21, 2016 at 11:14 pm #

    Rickey: So Judy files a 34-page cert petition, and nowhere in that petition does he argue why he is entitled to relief under § 1983.

    That just not True @Rickey and you know it. What do I have to point everything out to you?

    Q 3 outlined it.. page 25 goes into it. Just because you do not recognize the discrimination just as sever and equal in said Amendment XV does not mean it doesn’t exist.

    Race, Color, or Previous Condition of Servitude.

    These are all mentioned as separate and distinct, yet equal discrimination for 1983. Your just not comprehending what you do not want to see. It’s there and argued, but still has little to do with the corruption of the Court denying the Motion for Forma Pauperis.

    This argument even the Blind should see, but it has no comprehension level in your head. This makes you look very infirm.

    What is really kind of strange, is I have to teach you to see because your blind yet you see.

    I’m reading “2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/262436958

  12. avatar
    Rickey January 21, 2016 at 11:42 pm #

    CRJ: That just not True @Rickey and you know it. What do I have to point everything out to you?

    Q 3 outlined it.. page 25 goes into it. Just because you do not recognize the discrimination just as sever and equal in said Amendment XV does not mean it doesn’t exist.

    Are you really that dense?

    The Court of Appeals said that you failed to point to a single case which supported your claim that you are entitled to relief under § 1983. What cases did you point to in your cert petition which say that you are entitled to relief under § 1983?

    The answer is ZERO. You didn’t cite a single case which addresses entitlement to relief under § 1983, which is precisely what the Court of Appeals told you that you needed to do.

  13. avatar
    John Reilly January 21, 2016 at 11:57 pm #

    As the resident Republican on this site, as well as a member of the NRA, I believe that it is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment to bar convicted terrorists from owing guns.

    That means you, CRJ.

  14. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 22, 2016 at 12:25 am #

    Judy’s case, and I’m being kind in calling the gibbering word salad mish mash that, attempted to use two wholly inappropriate and inapplicable laws and then provided exactly no legal basis for implying that they were even remotely applicable, and then followed it up by asking for aremedy that was entirely outside the court’s ability to grant or consider, and the court told him so in no uncertain terms when they so rightly and properly kicked him to the curb. Not that he paid any attention to it. What he did do was lard his otherwise totally unremarkable and largely unreadable mess with great lashings of entirely irrelevant and pointless blather that not only added absolutely NOTHING to the case at hand, but probably obscured any valid points he might have otherwise made, not that I believe there were any. I suspect that someone competent and literate could have submitted the same POC based on the same lack of merit and legal reasoning at about a third the page count and still achieved the same result. It wouldn’t have changed things, but at least it wouldn’t have made the poor clerk’s eyes bleed.

    Then, when it comes time to appeal at the USSC, instead of filing a proper appeal, never mind the IFP that was apparently in the Too Hard File, explaining why and how the Appellate Court got it wrong, he attempts to effectively litigate a partially new case by entering material that was not even discussed originally. This alone was more than sufficient grounds to round file your POS, you just made it even easier for them by screwing yourself by not filing the IFP properly. You are a classic screw up failure.

    Just as a future reference, one of the real downsides of filing IFP, the court gets to look at what you file, and if they decide it is a POS they can round file it right then and there without having to go any further. Something you in particular should be wary of.

  15. avatar
    justlw January 22, 2016 at 12:30 am #

    “and the 2016 ineligible candidates including Barack Obama a.k.a. Barry Soetoro.”

    Finally something we can all agree with them on! Barack Obama is incontrovertibly Constitutionally ineligible in 2016.

  16. avatar
    RanTalbott January 22, 2016 at 4:45 am #

    Is that ad a parody? Or has McDonald’s really registered “Cuties” as a (bleep)ing trademark?!??

  17. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 22, 2016 at 5:10 am #

    justlw: Barack Obama is incontrovertibly Constitutionally ineligible in 2016.

    My memory fails me, did we cover the hypothetical how Obama could have a third term? (As in: “Since the Constitution only forbids being *elected* for a third term but not becoming acting President via the line of succession, Obama being Speaker of the House and both Prez and VP resigning would make him President again.)

  18. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 22, 2016 at 5:12 am #

    RanTalbott: Is that ad a parody? Or has McDonald’s really registered “Cuties” as a (bleep)ing trademark?!??

    Why not? “Kinder” (“children”) is a trademark in Germany (the company sells chocolate products) and they have (without success though) tried in the past to enjoin others from using the term in totally normal contexts (like naming a magazine thus).

  19. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 22, 2016 at 5:16 am #

    CRJ: Germany
    Established gun control in 1938.

    Sorry, FAIL again. Gun control had been in place long before that. In fact, the 1938 law *loosened* many existing regulations, see
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich

    The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition.

    Which makes the whole “if only Jews had had guns” Carsonism all the more stupid. (In fact, several million Soviet POW’s were also killed in the concentration camps, and these people *did* have guns to defend themselves.)

  20. avatar
    CRJ January 22, 2016 at 7:06 am #

    Notorial Dissent: if they decide it is a POS they can round file it right then and there without having to go any further.

    At least you just admitted the economical and political discriminations of [THEY]. Justice is more than [case law]. It has much to do with Truth and Liberty and Faithfulness to the Law.

    The three questions are very important questions but I do thank you gentleman for sharing your Opinions. Of course this comes from the same intelligence that believes that the [natural born Citizen] ie born in the U.S. to U.S. Citizen Parents , clause of our Constitution ought to include or does include first generation Citizens born or conferred of which if had been allowed 50, 100, or 150 years ago would have already ruined the United States of America.

    It’s just pathetically stupid, and very unappreciative of what you were given as far as opportunity. Your opinions on this shall go down in History as delusional, selfish, proud based, Elitist, snobbery.

    Mine will be upheld. God has promised it. . with patients I think you’ll find it True.

    It reminds me of some of the closing remarks of this article on Dr. Ben Carson’s Campaign
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/inside-the-carson-campaign-meltdown-218092

    There were just things that happened that we couldn’t have seen or predicted.
    “In life, as in campaigns, as in business … even the president of the United States, you take credit when everything is good and you take credit when everything is bad. The two are inseparable,” he said.
    “The season changed” after terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Williams observed.
    “Who do you blame for that? They could blame me, I could blame them. I’m not going to do that. It’s just like a force of nature. Something came along that none of us could foresee.”

    Perhaps it will be your suffering the same condition you are on Record here of mocking. ?

  21. avatar
    CRJ January 22, 2016 at 7:26 am #

    John Reilly: As the resident Republican on this site, as well as a member of the NRA, I believe that it is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment to bar convicted terrorists from owing guns.

    That means you, CRJ.

    I think it is an understatement that you would consider yourself a minority here on this Blog. One of the main reasons I have run as a Democrat is because the Republicans have the Respect for the Constitution of a blood filled mosquito as compared to a cow.

    In your siding with an unarmed Religeous protest in a Religeous Meeting you not only do disservice to the 1st Amendment, you do disservice to the 2nd.

    Your gratitude and latitude are conveniently located in the Communist File. You are a hypocrite of the U.S. Constitution and a threat to the Freedom and Liberty of our Nation.

    Your testimony is noticed as a domestic enemy.

  22. avatar
    roadburner January 22, 2016 at 8:47 am #

    CRJ

    Hummm.. Could it be? WOW! Did you see that 50 caliber rifle Obama let go of in Fast&Furious to cause mayhem on Americans so the Press would have a Field Day resulting in Americans wanting the 2nd Amendment tied to a Post?

    you’ve never looked into F&F in any detail have you?

    the reason the arms managed to cross the border was actual due to the 2nd amendment.

    the FBI agents involved in the investigation went to a judge to prevent the sale of the arms to the people who were making the buys in the united states before selling them to the cartels.

    the judge found that to prevent the buyers from buying and possesing the arms was in violation of the 2nd amendment, and told the agents `tough titty’.

    so basically, the reason the 50 cal found it’s way into the hands of the cartels was BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment, and not due to something your president did.

  23. avatar
    Scientist January 22, 2016 at 9:11 am #

    CRJ: Of course this comes from the same intelligence that believes that the [natural born Citizen] ie born in the U.S. to U.S. Citizen Parents , clause of our Constitution ought to include or does include first generation Citizens born or conferred of which if had been allowed 50, 100, or 150 years ago would have already ruined the United States of America.

    Of course, it is a fact that Chester`Arthur’s father was not a citizen at the time he was born and thus wouldn’t have been an NBC by your lights (though he was by any sensible person’s). He served most of a term as President without ruining the country (if he did, then it has managed for almost 150 years in a ruined state, becoming a superpower). Historians generally rate Arthur as a fairly good President; at a minimum he set up a professional Civil Service, rather than one staffed with political hacks, which seems unarguably a good thing.

    So, you are wrong in that as you are with everything else. If the natural born citizen clause had been done away or never put in at all, it’s hard to see that history would have changed in the slightest. I cannot think of anyone in US history who would have been elected but for the fact of being a naturalized citizen, nor would any of them been more dangerous than many native born idiots. Schwarzenegger was popular in 2004, but he wasn’t going to challenge Bush in a primary and by 2008, his popularity in California was in the toilet. I don’t see a case that he would have been any worse than Bush had he won in 2004 anyway.

  24. avatar
    Northland10 January 22, 2016 at 9:19 am #

    CRJ:You are a hypocrite of the U.S. Constitution and a threat to the Freedom and Liberty of our Nation.

    Your testimony is noticed as a domestic enemy.

    You have no idea who you were talking to, do you.

  25. avatar
    Whatever4 January 22, 2016 at 11:01 am #

    CRJ: It’s just pathetically stupid, and very unappreciative of what you were given as far as opportunity. Your opinions on this shall go down in History as delusional, selfish, proud based, Elitist, snobbery.

    Talk about irony.

  26. avatar
    CRJ January 22, 2016 at 12:21 pm #

    Northland10: You have no idea who you were talking to, do you.

    Does it REALLY matter [Who]? The fact you would illegally accuse, convict, and judge someone without Protected Constitutional Rights of Evidense as my Case represents is indicative of Who you are. To “get off” on Government Illegal unlawful prosecution or Crimes of Conviction and gloat about me not being able to excercise my 2nd Amendment rights for 23 years makes you the worst most dispicable dog in light of the U.S. Constitution as a Standard. That’s easy.

    You want to go to Jesus with your sick polluted, despicable defense of the Constitution with that kind of drunk-minded evidence Judge you go right ahead because he’ll burn it down to Hell and you with that Bench.

    Read my book and then Repent, his grace may still be an option for you. Let me tell you something where I come from “Thou shalt not bear False Witness against Thy neighbor”, still comes from a God that parted the Red Sea, sailed Fire down from Heaven, provided manna for a once enslaved people , provided water out of a Rock, healed blind and deaf people, and made even the dead to walk alive again.

    His cubbard is so full you never know what you’re gonna get, but it is bound to be quite a surprise with a little Faith. While I appreciate your admiration for the 2nd Amendment it is Faith that is dead the moment you accuse your brother falsly and gloat in his deprivation.

    Do you not think the Heavens notices that? Repent! Quit washing your face in vomit!

    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/02/fight-over-forgiveness-lds-church.html?m=1

    NEXT

    roadburner: you’ve never looked into F&F in any detail have you?

    Well… Actually it’s pretty easy to find details:

    The Jacob Chambers Case began in October 2009 and eventually became known in February 2010 as “Operation Fast and Furious” after agents discovered Chambers and the other suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.

    The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, with the expectation that this would lead to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels The tactic was questioned during the operations by a number of people, including ATF field agents and cooperating licensed gun dealers.

    During Operation Fast and Furious, the largest “gunwalking” probe, the ATF monitored the sale of about 2,000[1]:203[15] firearms, of which only 710 were recovered as of February 2012.: A number of straw purchasers have been arrested and indicted; however, as of October 2011, NONE of the targeted high-level cartel figures had been arrested

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

    I’d be remiss if I did not pay Tribute to the fallen border patrol agent Brian Terry killed by gunfire of FAST& FURIOS as well as Attorney General Eric Holder a being held in contempt by Congress

  27. avatar
    justlw January 22, 2016 at 12:48 pm #

    RanTalbott: s that ad a parody? Or has McDonald’s really registered “Cuties” as a (bleep)ing trademark?!??

    “Cuties” is not a McDonald’s brand — it’s a brand of clementine oranges. I’ve seen/bought them in supermarkets.

  28. avatar
    roadburner January 22, 2016 at 12:56 pm #

    CRJ

    NEXT

    Well… Actually it’s pretty easy to find details:

    then you were either…

    a) were ignorant of the case and have just looked at it rather than just regurgitating what you’ve Heard on your RWNJ blog of choice

    b) fully aware that the reason the arms could not be stopped was the 2nd amendment and decided to blame your president for it anyway

    either way, not very clever

    and the reason the cartel heads have not been arrested is because they are outside u.s. juristiction – but that’s probably your president’s fault as well eh?

    *rolleyes

  29. avatar
    bob January 22, 2016 at 1:05 pm #

    CRJ: Yes, you can actually by asking for Review and submitting argument for it that is then decided.

    Arguing for a case to be accepted is not the same as arguing the case. There are many reasons why SCOTUS would accept an unmeritorious case.

    That’s what made the IFP review of the Motion Denial so corrupt.

    There is nothing corrupt about a routine denial based Judy’s inability to follow simple directions.

    They saw the evidence and refused to see it. That is what constitutes Bad Behavior.

    Or: SCOTUS saw that Judy failed to follow directions, and then failed to fix his mistakes. In a frivolous case that was already hogging more judicial resources than it was ever worth.

    CRJ: What do I have to point everything out to you?

    Because Judy’s word salad is utterly incomprehensible.

    Race, Color, or Previous Condition of Servitude.

    Arguments never made in the district court. Judy still does not understand that SCOTUS cannot review what was never presented to the district court.

    Of course, that President Obama’s campaign discriminated against Judy based his “Race, Color, or Previous Condition of Servitude,” would be laughable if it wasn’t so insulting to those who have actually been so discriminated against.

    Your just not comprehending what you do not want to see.

    * * *

    This argument even the Blind should see, but it has no comprehension level in your head. This makes you look very infirm.

    Oh, the irony.

    CRJ: At least you just admitted the economical and political discriminations of [THEY]. Justice is more than [case law].

    Judy imagines discrimination because he isn’t man enough accept responsibility for his failings: SCOTUS rejected Judy’s IFP application because he is a perennial screwup who can’t follow directions.

    Of course this comes from the same intelligence that believes that the [natural born Citizen] ie born in the U.S. to U.S. Citizen Parents , clause of our Constitution ought to include or does include first generation Citizens born or conferred of which if had been allowed 50, 100, or 150 years ago would have already ruined the United States of America.

    Oh, the irony: Judy’s imaginary two-citizen-parent “rule” does not exist.

    Your opinions on this shall go down in History as delusional, selfish,proud based, Elitist, snobbery.

    Oh, the irony: Judy obsessively responds here because he ego compels it, and then he congratulates himself for doing such a “service.”

    Mine will be upheld. God has promised it. . with patients I think you’ll find it True.

    Always the last line for the delusional: Invoking divine certainty.

    Perhaps it will be your suffering the same condition you are on Record here of mocking. ?

    If Judy doesn’t want to be ridiculed, he should stop being ridiculous.

    CRJ:

    In your siding with an unarmed Religeous protest in a Religeous Meeting you not only do disservice to the 1st Amendment, you do disservice to the 2nd.

    Neither the 1st nor 2d Amendments protect terrorizing thousands by claiming to have an explosive device.

    You are a hypocrite of the U.S. Constitution and a threat to the Freedom and Liberty of our Nation.

    Says the felon who stole the liberty of thousands.

    Your testimony is noticed as a domestic enemy.

    Says the felon who literally terrorized thousands in the United States.

    CRJ: The fact you would illegally accuse, convict, and judge someone without Protected Constitutional Rights of Evidense as my Case represents is indicative of Who you are.

    Judy was duly accused, convicted, and sentenced by the State of Utah, not anyone here. And the courts duly rejected his claims about the purported inadequacies of his case.

    To “get off” on Government Illegal unlawful prosecution or Crimes of Conviction and gloat about me not being able to excercise my 2nd Amendment rights for 23 years makes you the worst most dispicable dog in light of the U.S. Constitution as a Standard.

    Further proof that the world is better off by restricting Judy’s access to firearms.

    You want to go to Jesus with your sick polluted, despicable defense of the Constitution with that kind of drunk-minded evidence Judge you go right ahead because he’ll burn it down to Hell and you with that Bench.

    Predictably, Judy threatens damnation on those who disagree with him.

    Read my book and then Repent, his grace may still be an option for you.

    Says the felon who has not sought repented for his very real crimes.

    Let me tell you something where I come from “Thou shalt not bear False Witness against Thy neighbor”

    Yet Judy cannot open his mouth without bearing false witness.

    Faith that is dead the moment you accuse your brother falsly and gloat in his deprivation.

    Judy is literally doing what he condemns.

    I would say that Judy’s undesired inserting himself has ruined yet another interesting conversation between intelligent people, but fortunately this thread is about gerbils. Judy fits in perfectly here.

  30. avatar
    Northland10 January 22, 2016 at 1:32 pm #

    Well, that was odd. I point out to Cody that he is calling John Reilly a domestic enemy without realizing that John is a veteran pilot for the Air Force (correct me if I’m wrong John). So, Cody instead goes off on me as if I were John.

    That little outburst does not help my opinion of CRJ.

  31. avatar
    Northland10 January 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm #

    CRJ: Quit washing your face in vomit!

    ROTFL

  32. avatar
    Andy January 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm #

    CRJ: Yes, you can actually by asking for Review and submitting argument for it that is then decided. That’s what made the IFP review of the Motion Denial so corrupt.

    I’m reading “IFP Reconsideration Review Judy v. Obama 14-9396” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/269622543
    They saw the evidence and refused to see it. That is what constitutes Bad Behavior.

    This is really serious
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-9396.htm

    Um, no. You argued that they should review taking your case, and still lost. That makes you twice as much a loser, right?

    Either way, you still haven’t argued a case in the Supreme court. And your case is still closed.

    And you still won’t be President, because, unless you read some pretty obscure stuff (like anti-birthers do, since Obama-birtherism is pretty far-out-there-fringe), most people have never heard of you. Well, except for the thousands you terrorized.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm #

    BR today reports that the Maricopa County Arizona Republican committee voted down a resolution that would have defined “natural born citizen” according to “natural law.”

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/01/shock-report-maricopa-county-gop.html

  34. avatar
    James M January 22, 2016 at 2:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    BR today reports that the Maricopa County Arizona Republican committee voted down a resolution that would have defined “natural born citizen” according to “natural law.”

    The resolution alludes to, but fails to specify a defintion of “natural born citizen.” It would stil require an opinionated reading of the resolution to arrive at the defintion its author presumably intended to be the one supported by “natural law (and Vattel)”:

    “[N]atural born Citizen” means person born in U.S. to two U.S. Citizen parents…”

    There were several other resolutions on the ballot:

    http://www.maricopacountygop.com/assets/uploads/2015/12/2015-MCRC-GOP-resolutions_RevC.pdf

    I’d like to know the outcome of the vote for the other resolutions.

  35. avatar
    James M January 22, 2016 at 5:50 pm #

    James M: The resolution alludes to, but fails to specify a defintion of “natural born citizen.” It would stil require an opinionated reading of the resolution to arrive at the defintion its author presumably intended to be the one supported by “natural law (and Vattel)”:

    “[N]atural born Citizen” means person born in U.S. to two U.S. Citizen parents…”

    There were several other resolutions on the ballot:

    http://www.maricopacountygop.com/assets/uploads/2015/12/2015-MCRC-GOP-resolutions_RevC.pdf

    I’d like to know the outcome of the vote for the other resolutions.

    It’s reported here that all the resolutions passed, including the one that GR said didn’t:

    http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2016/160120/news-mcrc.html

  36. avatar
    James M January 22, 2016 at 5:50 pm #

    James M: The resolution alludes to, but fails to specify a defintion of “natural born citizen.” It would stil require an opinionated reading of the resolution to arrive at the defintion its author presumably intended to be the one supported by “natural law (and Vattel)”:

    “[N]atural born Citizen” means person born in U.S. to two U.S. Citizen parents…”

    There were several other resolutions on the ballot:

    http://www.maricopacountygop.com/assets/uploads/2015/12/2015-MCRC-GOP-resolutions_RevC.pdf

    I’d like to know the outcome of the vote for the other resolutions.

    It’s reported here that all the resolutions passed, including the one that GR said didn’t:

    http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2016/160120/news-mcrc.html

  37. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund January 22, 2016 at 6:56 pm #

    CRJ: Yes, you can actually by asking for Review and submitting argument for it that is then decided. That’s what made the IFP review of the Motion Denial so corrupt.

    I’m reading “IFP Reconsideration Review Judy v. Obama 14-9396” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/269622543

    You would be better off reading the April 7th Letter from the Clerk, which explains why your IFP application was deficient. Of course, since your reading comprehension is abysmal, you’d be even better off posting it to Scribd so we can explain it to you.

  38. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 22, 2016 at 11:15 pm #

    Judy, you had the option of filing properly the correct number of copies of your appeal and paying the filing fee, or properly filing and complying with the rules for filing an IFP. You chose to do neither. if you do not follow the rules in either of the two examples the court will refuse to hear the appeal. You got where you are by your own laziness, but mostly by your incredible incompetence, you have no one to blame but yourself. The really ironic part, is that even if you had followed the rules, based on the POS you attempted to file, you would have been denied, since you did not follow the rules for cert submission. You did not give the court any reason or justification for them to return the case to the Appeals court since you presented nothing, and tried to relitigate a dead or non-existent issue. You quite simply failed on all fronts. You had no case to begin with, you had not grounds for appeal, and you had no grounds for review. A perfect trifecta of fail. And you wonder why we laugh at you.

  39. avatar
    John Reilly January 22, 2016 at 11:36 pm #

    Northland10:
    Well, that was odd.I point out to Cody that he is calling John Reilly a domestic enemy without realizing that John is a veteran pilot for the Air Force (correct me if I’m wrong John).So, Cody instead goes off on me as if I were John.

    That little outburst does not help my opinion of CRJ.

    Thank you for coming to my defense Northland. My ability to take out an annoyance using an F-16 has been limited since my retirement.

    However, good news CRJ. You can never retire from being a convicted terrorist.

  40. avatar
    CRJ January 23, 2016 at 1:30 am #

    John Reilly: Thank you for coming to my defense Northland. My ability to take out an annoyance using an F-16 has been limited since my retirement.

    However, good news CRJ. You can never retire from being a convicted terrorist.

    Next

    Northland10: CRJ: Quit washing your face in vomit!

    ROTFL

    That was pretty good huh? Lol😂😂😂 An F-16 wouldn’t do it. Lol The Constitution lives on. I’m small part to it.
    Really doesn’t matter who you are here in America if you’re trashing the Constitution you’re either a sick scumbag or your just flat out ignorant of what Freedom and Liberty means.

    Our Military Orders should know better then to prosecute the Constitution. .especially with the hardware the Constitution afforded. That might just be the time you hit that red button for the kill and the damn thing backfires or malfunctions.

    NEXT

    Andy: You argued

    Thank You (taking a bow)

    NEXT

    Notorial Dissent: A perfect trifecta of fail. And you wonder why we laugh at you.

    Never wondering.. Simply know and saddened by it. Your my brothers in Christ Jesus the Lord of all,

  41. avatar
    CRJ January 23, 2016 at 1:46 am #

    bob: Judy imagines discrimination because he isn’t man enough accept responsibility for his failings: SCOTUS rejected Judy’s IFP application because he is a perennial screwup who can’t follow directions.

    From the living pschosis of delusion Bob professes to have seen my balls 😂😂😂

  42. avatar
    bob January 23, 2016 at 2:42 am #

    CRJ: From the living pschosis of delusion Bob professes to have seen my balls

    Judy now imagines that anyone wants to see his testicles.

    Further showing that Judy lacks the courage to admit to his failings.

    CRJ: Next

    That was pretty good huh? LolReally doesn’t matter who you are here in America if you’re trashing the Constitution you’re either a sick scumbag or your just flat out ignorant of what Freedom and Liberty means.

    Says the birther who continuously lies about what is in the U.S. Constitution.

    Our Military Orders should know better then to prosecute the Constitution.

    The U.S. Constitution is being “prosecuted” only by birthers.

  43. avatar
    Lupin January 23, 2016 at 3:10 am #

    CRJ: You want to go to Jesus with your sick polluted, despicable defense of the Constitution with that kind of drunk-minded evidence Judge you go right ahead because he’ll burn it down to Hell and you with that Bench.

    Actually I speak to Jesus on a regular basis and he told me you were going to Hell, unless you truly repented your sinful deeds and saw the light. I told him I didn’t think you could do it. Well, as I always say: crackle, crackle.

  44. avatar
    J.D. Reed January 23, 2016 at 12:50 pm #

    Andy: Um, no.You argued that they should review taking your case, and still lost.That makes you twice as much a loser, right?

    Either way, you still haven’t argued a case in the Supreme court.And your case is still closed.

    And you still won’t be President, because, unless you read some pretty obscure stuff (like anti-birthers do, since Obama-birtherism is pretty far-out-there-fringe), most people have never heard of you.Well, except for the thousands you terrorized.

    And to be precise about it, CRJ can never argue a case before the Supreme Court because he is not a lawyer admitted to practice beforet the Supreme Court. Heck, he’s no lawyer at all, and of course,never will be.

  45. avatar
    Keith January 23, 2016 at 8:26 pm #

    CRJ: From the living pschosis of delusion Bob professes to have seen my balls

    If you hadn’t forgotten to wear your magic underwear, he would never have got the chance. Or are you just excited that maybe someone has seen your “Emperor’s New Clothes” routine you’ve been practicing.

    I guess if you can be vulgar so can we, huh?